Margaret Atwood's The Handmaid's Tale was published in 1985 and was awarded the Governor General's Award in 1985 and the Arthur C. Clarke Award in 1987. A dystopian novel set after religious radicals overtake the USA. Women are treated as objects of servitude and tools of reproduction by a male-dominated society that justifies its actions through the selective interpretation of the Old Testament scriptures.

Boo hoo, boo hoo. Women are being mistreated. First time, victim; second time, volunteer— the saying goes. Did the victimized protagonist battle against her victimizer, or did she accept her socially-defined role and give sex to her male victimizer? Yep, you guessed it. She volunteered.

The story is well-written, notwithstanding the blatant violation of writing rules, such as the lack of quotation marks around dialogue. I suppose a woman living in the era of the long saga of the feminist movement and educated at Radcliffe should get a pass on the rules of writing, just because.

Atwood uses stylized writing nonstop throughout the story. Some critics praise her style. I found it boring after the second page and borderline annoying. I did manage to read through to the end. I always read a book to the end, even though it may be painful and a waste of time. An author's work should be viewed as a whole if it is to be understood and appreciated.

Well, I did show my respect and read the entire book. My understanding of it may have been incomplete. That may be why I did not appreciate it. Writers who write to create impact sometimes miss the mark. I have learned that Atwood's writing is not the kind that leaves a permanent mark, at least not in my world.

This post also appeared on my blog at johnstrapasonbooks and on Goodreads reviews